fixpafandomcom-20200216-history
Prior Draft of Open East End Plan
=Recommendations and Concerns for the Board and Administration of the Pittsburgh Public Schools from the Open East End Panel= Submission date: March 19, 2010 Executive Summary: Time elements No new initiatives should be brought to a Board vote until there is widespread agreement that all stakeholders understand the proposals, the reasoning behind the proposals, and the alternatives to the proposals. Suggested rewrite by MR: The district should not attempt to begin all or most programs by the 2011-2012 school year, but rather should roll changes out gradually. Suggested rewrite by MR: Executive Summary: Relationship elements The district should work to create schools that will attract a diverse student body. The district should utilize the DeJong study fully, explain the reasoning behind the Reizenstein recommendation, and then obtain public input before making a decision on the location for the IB school. In addition the committee recommends that any renovations that would be made for the IB school at Peabody and at Reizenstein and the cost of such renovations be disclosed before a decision on the IB location is reached. Any renovations that would be made for the IB school at Peabody and at Reizenstein and the cost of such renovations should be disclosed before a decision on the IB location is reached. The district should provide information as to the job market data on which CTE recommendations are based and should offer CTE options for all students that are better aligned with preferences expressed by the community. The OEEP recommends that a career tech center be placed at Westinghouse High School with a frequent shuttle running to the East Busway. The district should provide a more detailed plan, including a facilities/administrative plan (how will CTE fit into the existing facility and overall school management) and a specific cost for CTE additions, be released with time for public input before presenting this plan to the Board regarding CTE programming at the University Prep and Science and Technology schools. Decisions on school day/year scheduling and the implications for CTE programming should be fully researched and vetted by the public before presentation to the Board. The OEEP recommends that Westinghouse remain a grade 9 - 12 school. The OEEP recommends that facilities for University Prep and Science and Technology be brought in line with the needs of a high school student population. The district should adopt an “all choice” model for students in the East region, providing them with the option to choose among any of the region’s non-magnet offerings. Background History In December 2009, the Pittsburgh Public Schools announced that annother panel had been created to offer advice on plans for schools in the “Lawrenceville to Homewood” region of the city. * Members of this panel failed to include individuals who had publicly challenged prior district initiatives. * Meetings of the PPS conveined panel were closed to the media, parents, teachers, and taxpayers. In response, two elected PPS board members, (Mark Brently and Randall Taylor), formed an “open” East End panel to investigate, consider and discuss the same issues considered by the district’s panel. Participants of the Open East End Panel (OEEP) met on four (cut) numerous occasions. Members of the OEEP toured the east end schools in question and attended the three public sessions that were orchestrated held by the PPS panel. Rapid Pace: Haste makes waste! The Open East End Panel is struck by the scope and speed of proposed changes for PPS students, especially in the eastern part of the city. * Career and Technical Education reorganization * New feeder patterns * Canges to school configurations ** Shifting to grades 6 to 12 for Westinghouse High School * Closing of Peabody High School * Merging Peabody students with Westinghouse and/or Milliones students * Starting of The “Big Picture” program that includes a new internship program * Year round school calendars at some locations * Longer school days at some locations * Separate boy and girl classrooms at some locations * Teacher Effectiveness initiative * Location uncertainty of the IB program * Location undertainty of the robotics program * New Keystone exams * Starting a social justice and leadership component at Westinghouse * Starting a Homewood Children's Zone and different levels of community involvement * Possible new location for credit recovery * Summer Dreams Camp replacing summer school for middle school students * Block scheduling at some locations * Changes in the Special Education program * New plans for facilities * Recruitment of nontraditional teachers * Curriculum changes * Move to “online” school libraries rather than libraries with printed books * Graduation for some after 3 years of high school * Graduation for others after 5 years of high school * Various mentoring programs Families and students are adjusting to and evaluating recent changes within the Pittsburgh Public Schools. * Formation of new schools ** Milliones ** Sci Tech ** IB (Pittsburgh Obama) ** Clayton/CEP * Closing of Schenley High School building * Phase out of Schenley student body * 6-12 grade configurations * many new principals * new magnet procedures * new courses ** African American literature and history that must be worked into schedules * requirements of the Pittsburgh Promise Limited public input prevails with PPS. Few sessions for public input and participation have been organized by the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Some public meetings occur, however, these sessions has been limited in many ways. Parents and students need time to learn about, understand and experience the new proposals. How the programs are to be implemented is not being conveyed. Citizens should be able to formulate possible adjustments to the PPS plans. The rushed process insures skeptical acceptance among students and the citizens for all new initiatives. Sadly, many of the new initiatives have advanced without broad public support. Expensive mistakes have been made and countless opportunities for educational enrichment have been squandered. Even board members have been caught unaware of many significant policy changes that have occurred in our schools. Implementation stumbles. The implementation of new initiatives requires time and detailed planning. Serious, system-wide changes take time to become rooted. In recent times with many instances, implementation has been a particular challenge for the district. * For example, at Milliones 134 students started grade 9 in the fall of 2008, but only 84 of these students entered the next grade in that school the following year. With better planning and implementation, the school might not have lost s gull third of those students. Strong enrollment occurs at schools that enjoy economic and racial diversity. Schools within the PPS with economically and racially diverse populations enjoy strong enrollment. The less diverse schools tend to be under enrolled. Research findings notes difficulties faced by schools with high concentrations of impoverished students. Students benefit when attending school where classmates differ. Special education students increase diversity in schools as well. However, the recent trend from PPS runs counter to this principle and in instances, with itself. The district's assertion states that "disparate programs" within a single building result in one of the programs being "less well served." So, theme schools have been formed. Botique schools give cause to wonder. Does it make sense to have a school with only IB students yet not have another school with only CTE students? Why can't a school have some IB students mixing with other CTE students? Many schools have some but not all students participate in CAS, AP or CTE programs with no apparent plans to move those students to separate schools. Even in the themed CAPA school, a wide achievement gaps prevail as a lower percentages of low income and African American students are within the "advanced" level at CAPA. With the proper management, students enrolled in various programs (CAS, AP and IB) can be well educated along with those who choose to participate in other programs. In school management matters greatly. Furthermore, most of all, schools should enjoy economic and racial diversity. By all accounts, do not create a school with an overwhelming majority of one economic and racial population segment. 4) The DeJong consultant recommended that the IB school remain at Reizenstein rather than move to Peabody. The reasoning behind this decision is unclear. The District’s IB site selection committee made its recommendation almost a year prior to and without the benefit of the deJong study. Given that the district paid $500,000 for this DeJong study the panel recommends that the district utilize it fully, explain the reasoning behind the Reizenstein recommendation, the reasoning behind rejecting this recommendation and then obtain public input before making a decision on the location for the IB school. 5) The panel also notes that the absence of natural light at Peabody could be a factor in whether families would choose to send their children to school at the Peabody location. Several weeks ago PPS Board director and OEEP member Mark Brentley submitted a request for information on the cost of adding windows to the Peabody facility but has not received this information. The committee recommends that any renovations that would be made for the IB school at Peabody and at Reizenstein and the cost of such renovations be disclosed before a decision on the IB location is reached. 6) The OEEP is concerned that the district’s plans for Career and Technical Education do not sufficiently meet the criteria for a comprehensive overhaul of CTE programming. In the East region, the CTE plan primarily involves consolidating the Culinary Arts and Health Sciences programs at Westinghouse; discontinuing the Cosmetology program at Westinghouse; and adding an Information Technology, Business and Finance program at Milliones. This is not a real overhaul, as dictated by the PPS School Board, and these CTE options do not adequately reflect the preferences expressed by parents, students, teachers and community members at the DeJong community dialogues. The top individual and online CTE choices at the dialogues were Engineering Technology and Construction & Trades (Group responses also included Health Sciences as a top choice). Although there is reportedly a plan for bio, computer, engineering and environmental technology at the Sci Tech school, these opportunities are apparently open only to the small number of students who attend the Sci Tech school. Consumer Services such as Culinary Arts were at the bottom of the list yet are included in each of the District’s proposed “triads”. Meanwhile, no plan has been provided for students in the East region to participate in Construction and Trades. In general, participants in the community dialogues requested that CTE offerings be based on sound research into projected demand for the skills in question. The OEEP requests information as to the job market data on which CTE recommendations are based, as well as CTE options for all students that are better aligned with community preferences. 7) The OEEP notes that the strong preference expressed at the DeJong community dialogues was for a career technology center. While the district asserts that a centralized CTE site is “an effective delivery model,” the panel notes that the Parkway West Career & Technology Center offers an impressive range of CTE for information on the # of students from 12 suburban communities at a single center. Training includes auto body repair, automotive technology, business technology, carpentry, computer technology, cosmetology, culinary arts, digital multimedia technology, drafting & design, electrical construction maintenance, health assistant, HVAC/R, information technology, masonry, public safety technology and welding technology. While the district asserts “capital costs exceeding $100 million are projected for such a facility” this assertion ignores the possibility of utilizing a facility that is already well suited for a CTE center, such as Westinghouse. The district observes that Westinghouse is in a “difficult” location. To address this issue, the panel recommends that a shuttle run throughout the day between the East Busway and Westinghouse. With safe transportation, a center devoted to high quality career technology could be expected to attract a diverse student body similar to the diverse student body CAPA attracted when it was located in Homewood. The OEEP recommends that the District release a comprehensive budget for converting one of the PPS facilities that is already outfitted for CTE programming (i.e. Westinghouse or Peabody High Schools) and to provide more specific cost information regarding participating in a suburban consortium. Contingent on release of this information, the OEEP recommends that a career tech center be placed at Westinghouse High School with a frequent shuttle running to the East Busway. The panel also observes that while the district invokes Dr. Johnson Martin’s and Julia Stewart’s names in making its recommendations, it does not disclose the budgetary restrictions imposed that severely limited their recommendations. The panel also notes that much of the $38 million mentioned in connection with the proposed CTE overhaul is actually slated for renovation of Oliver High School, which under the district plan would offer not just CTE but also early college, credit recovery and reentry programs. In light of the loss of South Vo Tech, CTE funding should be spent specifically for CTE. Finally, the panel finds problematic the plan for a midday shuttle of up to 45 minutes to bring students from their home school to a CTE program. Most students at the affected schools are not proficient in reading and math and reducing instruction time by 45 minutes is counterproductive to bringing these students to proficiency. While the district states that most respondents at the community dialogue found a 45-minute trip acceptable, it was not specified that the 45 minute travel time might be in addition to travel time at the beginning and end of the school day. 8) Included in the District’s CTE revision is a plan for both the University Prep at Milliones and the Science and Technology schools to have CTE components added to the curriculum. Both of these schools were opened within the last two years. Teachers, parents and students are adjusting to a new environment, staff and administration, making additional changes burdensome. These schools have had extensive renovations totaling more than $30 million. In addition, the Science and Technology school lost its auditorium to make room for an Early Childhood center. How will space for the new CTE components of the school fit into a facility that is already losing amenities due to lack of space? How much more funding will be required in order to add CTE programming? Also, both of these schools were designed with a specific, “college preparatory” focus. Will adding CTE programming dilute the mission of these two schools? The OEEP recommends that a more detailed plan, including a facilities/administrative plan (how will CTE fit into the existing facility and overall school management) and a specific cost for CTE additions, be released with time for public input before presenting this plan to the Board. 9) In the district's proposals for programming at Westinghouse High School, year round and extended day schooling has been suggested. If the other high schools in the East End triad will have traditional school day/year schedules, it will be difficult if not impossible for students attending those other schools to participate in CTE programming housed at Westinghouse or for Westinghouse students to participate in CTE programming at the other facilities. The OEEP recommends that decisions on school day/year scheduling and the implications for CTE programming be fully researched and vetted by the public before presentation to the Board. 10) The district has proposed reconfiguring Westinghouse as a grade 6-12 school. However, at the community dialogues one of the strongest sentiments was against the grade 6-12 format. And, since most students from outside the existing Westinghouse feeder pattern would join at the 9th grade level, a 6-12 school would serve to reinforce their "outsider" status. While Westinghouse would be the fifth grade 6-12 school "between the rivers," none of the schools "outside the rivers" has been covered to this unpopular format. Leaving only a single grade 9-12 school between the rivers unduly limits students' options. The OEEP recommends that Westinghouse remain a grade 9 - 12 school. 11) In February, members of the OEEC toured the facilities being discussed by the East End reconfiguration plan, including University Prep at Milliones, Science and Technology, Peabody and Westinghouse high schools. The OEEP was struck by the difference in the facilities that were originally designed to house middle school students versus those designed for high school students. As mentioned above, the Science and Technology facility has no auditorium. The gymnasium at University Prep is has seating for minimal (about 50 or fewer) spectators. The classrooms at both facilities are much smaller than at Peabody and Westinghouse. The OEEP questions whether these facilities will attract parents and students as high school facilities in the long run. The OEEP recommends that facilities for University Prep and Science and Technology be brought in line with the needs of a high school student population. 12) The OEEP recognizes that for some students, a traditional comprehensive high school is the best option. Further, some families would prefer not to be among the trailbreakers testing out new ideas. In particular, while it is fine to provide “all year round” and “single gender classroom” choices, it would be unreasonable to require a student to attend such a school as part of a feeder pattern. Reserving the “traditional” option for students who live in certain parts of the city is inequitable, particularly in light of the administration’s strongly expressed support for choice for families. Therefore, the OEEP recommends an “all choice” model where students in the East region have the option to choose among any of the district’s non-magnet offerings, at least in the East region. If a school is overenrolled a lottery could be held or programs adjusted in line with demand. This model would provide families with the widest possible choice and would further the competition among schools that is favored by the US Department of Education. 7